Also, I'm on the Trott hit it bandwagon, the fact that two different angles from front on indicated a deflection takes out the possibility if camera tricks.

On Agar, I think people overestimate how often the foot is up, it can still be touching the ground but people perceive it to only be doing so when they press it hard against it and you can see downward pressure on the ground. I have heard people say its irrelevant to the case (I kept on watching his foot for a lift in the few replays I watched, not the timing of the stumping) but thought it was a point worth making anyway.

Agar seems line-ball personally. Was very hard to tell whether he got back on time. If pushed, I'd say he was out, but BOTD probably made the most sense. It'd have taken a brave umpire to give it.

As for Trott, I didn't watch it, so it's hard to say. Apparently Snicko suggests there was no nick, but it was lacking certain angles of HotSpot. Given how adamant Trott seemed that he hit it, and that Snicko doesn't count, it was probably best to stick with the on-field call, but it did seem like that was out.

But England have had some luck too. Although those were consistent with UDRS.

Thought Agar was probably out on the stumping and from watching this replay I'm firmly in the camp that Trott hit that lbw. Woeful that side-on hotspot was unavailable and the front-on is useless as Trott turns his bat the wrong way for us to see the relevant edge.

I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum... And I'm all out of bubblegum.

Posts

16,201

I thought Agar was clearly out. I thought the crease line was clear enough from the stump angle and that none of his boot was behind it when the stumps were disturbed. The side on angle showing the stumps could only be disturbed by Prior taking off the bails. I was very surprised that it wasn't given out.

>>>>>>WHHOOOOOOOOOSHHHHHHH>>>>>>Fascist Dictator of the Heath Davis Appreciation SocietySupporting Petone's Finest since the very start - Iain O'Brien
Also Supporting the All Time #1 Batsman of All Time Ever - Jacques Kallis and the much maligned Peter Siddle.

Snicko showed absolutely no evidence of an edge, though that's irrelevant to the UDRS question.

Amazed that anyone can be sure that he hit it. I mean, doubt is fair but I'm really quite amazed at the level of conviction that he definitely hit it.

I'm not quite sure why nobody appears to have picked up on Dar's reaction to the decision. Frankly it's the closest i can remember coming to seeing an onfield umpire showing dissent at a DRS decision (after having to give it out he shrugged his shoulders and effectively gave a look of "what can i do?").

I wonder if a different outcome would have occurred if DRS decisions (as far as i can tell) weren't taken in total isolation, as opposed to in conference with the onfield umpire? Especially as these days all the players and the umpire can see the replays on the big screen. I can imagine a conversation going:

Erasmus: "I'm going to give him out"
Dar: "But I'm positive he hit it, can you take a closer look"
Erasmus: "Can't see anything on Hotspot"
Dar: "What about non hotspot replays"
...

I'm not quite sure why nobody appears to have picked up on Dar's reaction to the decision. Frankly it's the closest i can remember coming to seeing an onfield umpire showing dissent at a DRS decision (after having to give it out he shrugged his shoulders and effectively gave a look of "what can i do?").

I wonder if a different outcome would have occurred if DRS decisions (as far as i can tell) weren't taken in total isolation, as opposed to in conference with the onfield umpire? Especially as these days all the players and the umpire can see the replays on the big screen. I can imagine a conversation going:

Erasmus: "I'm going to give him out"
Dar: "But I'm positive he hit it, can you take a closer look"
Erasmus: "Can't see anything on Hotspot"
Dar: "What about non hotspot replays"
...

I'm mainly saying that Erasmus made a bad decision without properly considering the evidence, and had the DRS been more of a conversation he might have made a better decision. After all he possibly didn't even know the reason why Dar didn't give it out and may have thought he just misjudged the line of the ball and had made a howler.

I think that Dar showing dissent at the decision is some evidence that the decision was bad - after all, as was often pointed out in the past (when the debate over the merits of technology was more finely balanced than it is now) the onfield umpire does have a view unavailable to television - ie. a three dimensional view (albeit obviously with the limitations of seeing it once, and at pace). It is the reason why DRS works best as it does (needing clear evidence to overturn a decision), rather than decision making being completely subcontracted to the technology.

Again I don't understand how Erasmus made a bad decision. The technology in use - hotspot - shows no evidence of an edge so he made the call that there was no edge. DRS exists so one team can effectively overrule the umpire with the use of technology. If you refer, and the tech says no edge, but you overrule the tech to go with the umpire's call, what is the point of DRS?

Again I don't understand how Erasmus made a bad decision. The technology in use - hotspot - shows no evidence of an edge so he made the call that there was no edge. DRS exists so one team can effectively overrule the umpire with the use of technology. If you refer, and the tech says no edge, but you overrule the tech to go with the umpire's call, what is the point of DRS?

Precisely. I'm still not seeing this incredibly convincing case that he hit it.

Again I don't understand how Erasmus made a bad decision. The technology in use - hotspot - shows no evidence of an edge so he made the call that there was no edge. DRS exists so one team can effectively overrule the umpire with the use of technology. If you refer, and the tech says no edge, but you overrule the tech to go with the umpire's call, what is the point of DRS?

Hotspot isn't the only technology available (and in this case it wasn't properly available, as has been documented). Whereas the traditional 2D televisions pictures strongly suggested a deviation resulting from an edge. If Erasmus seriously considered the latter, and dismissed it, then (just about) fair enough but i don't think he did.